Police union endorses Trump
Good:
The National Association of Police Organizations endorsed President Trump’s reelection Wednesday, citing his “steadfast and very public support” for law enforcement.
In a brief letter to Mr. Trump, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, NAPO President Michael McHale said the president’s support was critical in the wake of the attacks on law enforcement following the death of George Floyd…
The decision to side with Mr. Trump this year delivered a blow to presumed Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden, who prides himself on being a “union man” and longtime ally of police.
The group didn’t endorse anyone in 2016, and endorsed Obama/Biden in 2008 and 2012.
One would hope that this unambiguous step will be the start of a tsunami of support for the country and its president (Marxist unions excepted, of course, though—who knows?—maybe they’ll start to implode if enough of the rank and file begin to notice the contradictions, connect the dots and see the light).
In any event, the ever-eloquent Bruce Bawer tells it like it is, wavering between utter dismay at the current— extraordinary—betrayal and his fervent hope that the country will endure, as he expresses his shock and amazement that so many Americans don’t seem to have a clue about what’s at stake (though for this, as he acknowledges, the MSCM should give themselves a hearty pat on the back).
https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/15/how-confident-can-we-be-of-victory-in-november/
H/T Powerline blog
All things considered, the NAPO’s failure to endorse anybody in 2016 is puzzling except if you consider they were confused the new picture.
But Obama/Biden? Twice?
The police union decided to endorse President Trump because the salaries and positions of said union officials are at stake.
Something just occurred to me.
Without condemning law enforcement, I think it’s not crazy to say we’ve taken an increasingly militaristic approach to policing over the last 30 years. Just go watch episodes of “Law and Order.” In the first few years, when the detectives went to arrest somebody, even someone possibly dangerous, it was just those two guys and their handguns. Go about 10 seasons in and on, however, and you constantly see SWAT teams being used to enter rooms and capture suspects. And, of course, the U.S. imprisons a huge number of people.
Liberals and the Left hate that incarceration rate and the militaristic-style of policing. But…what if those things were the glue that kept liberal/Democratic policy making from flying apart at the seams? We’ve been importing huge numbers of immigrants without imposing on them anything like the assimilation requirements of the past while simultaneously enacting economic policies that if they weren’t designed to hollow out the middle class and enrich the elite have functioned that exact same way.
What if a heavy hand of law and order is the only thing that makes those policies sustainable? It sure is starting to look that way in one big blue metropolis after another.
Mike
Far more impactful than the Police Union endorsing Trump will be the terror, chaos and heartache that awaits the sheep who imagine that sheepdogs are not essential. Utterly delusional in their fantasy that wolves are open to domestication.
After our next Civil War, hold the surviving officials who voted to geld the police as accessories to the crimes they enabled and as consequence, enact the death penalty.
Leftists are ever nearer to learning that playing hard ball can be painful in the extreme. Learning that when they finally force the right to accept that the rule of law no longer exists, that the whirlwind they’ve sown has arrived to collect its due price.
MBunge — Law & Order (or its stepsister L&O Special Victims) is not in any way a peek inside the police business. Please don’t use it as a scale to measure real life against. Please note that they never sit down and commit any interviews to writing, they don’t even ask witnesses to stop wandering around their business or home so that a proper interview can be had, and real detectives do not have to go back to their commander to find out what the next step should be. I could go on all night. I know this stuff, honest.
Makes for “good drama” but it also makes for a misinformed citizenry that often sits as a jury and sees how wrong the local cops are because they don’t do it like L&O.
accessories to the crimes they enabled and as consequence, enact the death penalty
Send them to Planned Parenthood under the Planned Prisoner program, where human lives are aborted under the moral regime of the Liberal or Progressive Churches. No, maybe not. The abortion chambers will need to be shutdown and dismantled pending a human waste (e.g. carbon) review.
Law & Order (or its stepsister L&O Special Victims) is not in any way a peek inside the police business
What about “Adam-12”?
As I recall, n.n, Adam-12 is closer to reality, but they do skip out on a lot of report writing too… In my opinion.
Dude, I don’t know if this is like your thing or something but actually think about what I wrote. No, L&O is not a documentary. Prosecutors who charged multiple people for the same crime as often as they do on the show would get fired and/or disbarred in short order.
But the show does aspire to at least a veneer of accuracy and I’m using it to visually demonstrate an actual change in police procedure. The use of heavily armed and armored police officers to enter buildings in search of suspects is pretty commonplace today yet was almost unheard of a few decades ago.
I could have instead talked about how police departments in even fairly small communities now have equipment like MRAPs but that doesn’t paint quite as clear a picture.
The point is not the verisimilitude of L&O. The point is the changing nature of policing in the United States.
Mike
Yes, things have changed greatly. A lot of the heavy equipment is there because its safer for all involved, and the Feds made it available for next to nothing. The use of SWAT-type units came about as a result of lawsuits where departments paid settlements because a point was made about the lack of tactical skill an ad hoc collection of “regular” officers might bring to bear, in comparison to a team of practiced specialists. The improvement of the armament of the officers isn’t that much enhanced, and that mostly in response to that of the adversary. My point was that L&O is not a good example when serious LE practices are being discussed. That’s all.
NAPO is an “association of associations” and not all individual associations belong. Most police associations are labor oriented, dealing with compensation and working conditions, and tend to endorse politicians to achieve gains in that area. Hence the Obama-Biden support in 08, 12. Today’s Democrat party is anti-police and pro-criminal to the point that the survival of the officers has eclipsed the more traditional labor-related issues. Times change so the interest groups respond in relation to those changes.
All very interesting.
Seems that SWAT units are particularly useful when it comes to arresting 67-year old Trump supporters.
In pajamas.
By the dawn’s early light.
Yep, they nabbed another dangerous sexagenarian. And with no—that’s right, ZERO—collateral damage, imagine that.
(Never mind the in-depth coverage: just for happening to be there to at the right time to film this complex but brilliantly executed anti-sexagenarianist operation, CNN deserves a Pulitzer…)
Scott Adams has a good take on how many Dems “hate Trump but don’t really want BLM rioters to get everything they want”.
Lukewarm.
Reps are afraid of an Extinction Event. (I, too, fear it).
http://www.watcherofweasels.org/scott-adams-the-coming-election-is-an-extinction-event/
More police chiefs will be able to openly support Trump and Law & Order over Dem disorder & BLM riots.
I quit watching L&O and SVU years ago. Once I was retired, I didn’t have the time. But for those who’ve kept up with it:
Have they ever done a dynamic entry, with or without shooting the dog, at a wrong address?
One does not need to watch Law & Order or Special Victims Unit to understand that law enforcement has changed. Does anyone over 60 ever remember seeing a policeman wearing a ballistic vest? And nowadays, does anyone remember seeing an LEO without a ballistic vest? Or think back to armament 60 years ago and now: LEOs when I was young had a revolver, and possibly a shotgun in the vehicle. Now the LEO carries an autoloading pistol with a magazine holding 13-21 cartridges, and two extra magazines on his/her belt, along with a military long gun in the car, not to forget helmets and other accoutrements from the battlefield.
I am the first to admit, this is in response to a change in the bad guys’ change in armament: they are also carrying autoloaders with high capacity magazines and ballistic vests. We are also seeing more armored vehicles being used by law enforcement, and cops are able to tap into information data bases from their vehicle and communicate from their person to headquarters.
So the equation has changed on both sides. And legislatures appear more and more ready to handicap the police and allow law-breakers to go Scott-free when they’re apprehended. A recent development in rioters’ armament comes from the demonstrations in Hong Kong: Antifa and BLM appear to be using hand-held lasers to blind law enforcement officers. It’s an insidious development: they don’t appear to be dangerous weapons, but they can disable an LEO at 100 yards.
It’s a strange world out there.
Well I guess that means Trump won’t be getting an endorsement from Black Lives Matter and antifa.
Our little Northern CA town’s idea of policing is to leave empty police cars all around town. I think they might be better served by going back to basics and walking a beat and humanizing themselves. `
Better buy your laseing devices now, while you can. You would be astounded at what you can still obtain from China for a few hundred bucks.
And lasers can be shone right back at Antifa too. I’m surprised that dazzlers have not aready been used. You could set them up like claymores.
The trouble with using less than or non lethal devices on personally menacing trespassers threating imminant bodily harm and thus comitting what has been considered assault under the law traditionally, is that these people have nothing worth anything, including their lives, as they evaluate life, to lose.
You will be sued, and possibly prosecuted. We have all witnessed the prosecutor in St Louis, and Fredo Cuomo on TV, minimizing what has historically been considered assault.
So along with all other boundaries, interpersonal ones also fall under progressive assault.
Which makes perfect sense, since the elimination of personal immunities, boundaries, and conscience, are all essential aims of the collectivist minded organism.
As they see it you exist, insofar as you are conditionally allowed to exist, for them and their gratification, without hinderance or let, body and soul, forever and ever …. amen.
That , is another reason, apart from their irrationality, that you cannot negotiate with a progressive. You have nothing to bargain with that they do not already claim total access to and collective ownership over.
And we fleetingly wonder what the link between Marxian progressivism and Islam could possibly be … hmmm.